Action Item Review

? 2005-07-21: pauld to write a proposal for a working group
report for requirements for schema evolution
following closure of LC124
DONE [.6] 2005-09-26: Arthur to figure out how to treat built-in schema
types. (LC315), due 2005-10-06.
? 2005-09-26: DaveO to draft a response and send to the WG.
(LC335), due 2005-10-06.
? 2005-09-26: Arthur to draft above as a proposal to be able to
close this issue (LC344#5), due 2005-10-06.
? 2005-09-26: Arthur to look for simplification options for
comment 12 of 344. (LC344#12), due 2005-10-06.
? 2005-09-26: Jonathan to point this out when it gets
Implemented (LC344#13), due 2005-10-06.
? 2005-09-26: Sanjiva and Roberto to investigate defaulting with
interfaceless bindings (LC333), due 2005-10,06
? 2005-10-06: Marsh to investigate LC301 re .NET scenarios,
due 2005-10-13.
? 2005-10-06: Charlton to augment Hugo's proposal with
parameters for all serializations, and syntax
for suppressing parameters, due 2005-10-13.
DONE [.3] 2005-10-13: Marsh to add RDF links to home page,
due 2005-10-20.
DONE [.7] 2005-10-13: Paul and Glen to review SPARQL draft,
due 2005-10-20.
DONE 2005-10-13: Tony to review I18N draft, due 2005-10-20.
DONE [.4] 2005-10-13: Sanjiva to write up his style-based generic
mapping in to media type (LC304), due 2005-10-20.
DONE [.5] 2005-10-13: Hugo to write up URI's describing architected
serialization format extensibility point
(LC304), due 2005-10-20.
Current Editorial Action Items
? 2005-07-21: Arthur to add stable identifiers for each
assertion, due 2005-09-26.
? 2005-09-26: editors to fix the first paragraph of section 4
... does not make sense at all right now.
(LC344#5), due 2005-10-06.
? 2005-09-26: Editors to add a sentence saying {address} is
optional because it could be defined by other
means, such as an WS-A endpoint reference or maybe
the scenario does not require an address.
(LC344#13), due 2005-10-06.
? 2005-09-26: Editors fix "Case Elements NOT cited" in 6.8.1.2
header to be "Case of elements NOT cited" (LC345),
due 2005-10-06.
Note: Editorial AIs associated with LC issues recorded at [.2].
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/#actions
[.2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/lc-issues/actions_owner.html
[.3] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Oct/0022.html
[.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Oct/0028.html
[.6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Oct/0027.html
[.7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Oct/0034.html

RDF mapping

Table not really progressing

Publish what we have

Jacek: Ready to help

Marsh: Will look at status etc.
with Hugo

Hugo: explain in status section
that we are looking for feedback

Marsh: not sure if Semantic Web
WG will move to recommendation
... need to know who the customers of this note are

SPARQL

Paul: query language for querying
RDF triples
... built a protocol, described in WSDL
... raised 3 LC comments, mainly on HTTP binding
... have in-out query, bound to HTTP in SOAP; also HTTP version
with POST and GET
... bunch of examples
... they will have to republish their document

Marsh: is it a standalone
document, we could validate with Arthur's validator?

Bijan: pat was still unhappy, but
realized something has to be done anyway

I18N review

<pauld> one last SPARQL nit:
the document relies upon the reading of several external
documents - a WSDL and a pair of schemas, the links of which
are buried in the document. In the case of the schemas you have
to hop through their namespace documents. Might be nice to have
a separate table calling out these links.

Editorial issues

301

304

Hugo: last week, discussed
ambiguities in way serialization format could be extended
... in consequence, 2 action items
... looked at how to use URIs for extensibility points
... instead of using mediatype, use URIs for the 3
serialization format that we define
... also, in light of resolution for LC337, change type of
in/...fault serialization mediatypes to URIs as well
... this will fix the extensibility ambiguity
... can now say: return XML/RDF or XML/whatever using a URI
defined for that purpose
... will lose mediatype parameters, however their use was
unclear

Marsh: my understanding not just
what mediatype is, but how you go from XML structure defined in
WSDL/Schema to that mediatype
... need some mechanism to go from XML to MIME package
... with RDF, several possibility for serialization

Sanjiva: our we going to specify
how to go, e.g. base64 to image/jpeg, and do so for every
serialization we define?

Marsh: do you think we could have
a generic way of mapping from XML to mediatype?

Sanjiva: yes

Marsh: e.g. RDF constrained with
Schema

Sanjiva: put schema in
serialization

Marsh: what if what to put
mediatype as well?

Sanjiva: should then introduce
httpMediatype

DaveO: separate issue: idea of
having URIs for mediatypes is fabulous, TAG (or whoever)
precisely asked IANA to use such a mechanism
... IANA did produce a few, but not much
... W3C could well define some and provide mapping to
mediatypes

Hugo: naming serialization format
with mediatype is problematic, because on the wire may be
similar, although different mediatypes
... there could be several serialization formats sending
application/RDF+XML
... changing the name of serialization format to URI is a
simple change
... changing completely serialization formats is bigger
change

Amy: has similar problem to
sanjiva
... unlike DaveO, we're not getting much here
... if 1-to-1 mapping from mediatype to URI, then what are we
getting unless incompatibility?

Hugo: not proposing to use URI
just in place of mediatype token
... believe one could come up with several application/RDF+xml
serialization format
... would all use that as their content type
... however could use different rules

Amy: would there be a schema for
the messages in RDF?
... and thus need mapping
... multiple mappings to mediatype; but where would WSDL
mediate that interaction?

Marsh: spec now has 3 sections/3
serialization, could define URIs "representing" these
sections

<alewis> so the issues is
that when we define serialization for a particular media type,
we "use up" that media type and preclude other mappings?

Marsh: for example, XML
serialized into an HTTP GET. Now we have a second serialization
format, but still the same mediatype

Asir: are we asking for 1 or 2
properties?

Hugo: proposes a simple fix:
using URIs
... possibly better solutions, but too late in game
... URI would provide an identifier
... either you know the serialization format and can make sense
of the data, or you don't and can't

Sanjiva: don't want to delay
spec
... but if should have 2 properties, then let's have them

<Zakim> Marsh, you wanted to
ask how well this solution solves the SPARQL issue.

Sanjiva: WSDL URIs not a solution
for me

Marsh: would this solve SPARQL
issues?

Hugo: email with kendal clark,
pretty happy
... not convinced that spec as it stands + LC337 is enough

Marsh: could we say this is the
content type that gets over the wire?

Hugo: either keep current
situation (but need clarifications, e.g. what does it mean if
foo/bar as contenttype but not defined in WSDL spec),
... ... or use URIs as proposed, or use a solution similar to
Sanjiva's.
... status quo will not make it because spec is currently
unclear

Marsh: worried to put options
forward at this stage, still some confusion

Asir: RDF issue only?

Hugo: no, more general, although
indeed problem was raised from RDF

Asir: previously had encodingType
in SOAP binding; isn't this similar?

Hugo: maybe people will be happy
to use only the 3 serialization formats we defined; but some
people are already trying to use others
... suppose want to use RELAXNG for the format of messages,
none of our formats (except application/xml) can be used
(because rely on XML Schema)
... so, here is a very concrete example
... will need to introduce a new property in the binding, like
rngHTTPSerialization format

357

Marsh: comment from I18N WG

Hugo: pretty easy

Marsh: oh ye?
... should mention that xsi:anyURI, although supporting IRIs in
principal, has no mapping currently in such form (???)
... anyone with a better clue?
... what does this mapping mean?
... 1) adopt as is; or 2) go back and ask for
clarification?